A severe blow to the head can cause

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong2% picked this

   It is cited as evidence that consciousness does in fact survive

   Too Strong: does in fact survive Bad Conclusion Match The damaged radio is part of an analogy that is evidence for the author's rebuttal. But the author's conclusion is a very weak, inconclusive idea: your blow-to-the-head evidence doesn't convince me that consciousness doesn't survive. Saying something like, "I'm not convinced I should hire you" does not mean the same thing as "I'm convinced I should not hire you". This answer acts like the author's conclusion was, "I'm convinced that consciousness survives bodily death", when it was really "I'm not convinced that consciousness ends via bodily death".

   2%
2. B

   Trap9% picked this

   It is cited as a counterexample to a widely accepted belief about the

   Not a Counterexample Too Strong: widely accepted It never said there was a "widely accepted" belief. It just said "some people infer". But if we forgave that problem, we'd be thinking, "What was the belief?" It was that consciousness cannot survive bodily death. Is the "damaged radio" claim a counterexample to that? No, a counterexample is a specific place / person / thing that does not conform to a general claim. So a counterexample to this belief would be, "What about Eddie? He had bodily death but his consciousness survived!"

   9%
3. C

   Correct75% picked this

   It is cited as a case analogous to loss of consciousness in which people do not draw the same sort of conclusion

   Why this is right

   It is indeed cited as an analogous case, since the author brings the conversation back to the consciousness / bodily death focus by using Similarly, which is a classic keyword for analogies. When people see that a damaged body loses consciousness, they conclude that once the body stops working, consciousness also stops. Meanwhile, when people see that a damaged radio no longer broadcasts a certain radio program, they do not conclude that once a radio stops working, the program it was airing also stops.

   Skill tested: Role · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   75%
4. D

   Bad Conclusion Match12% picked this

   It is cited as the primary piece of evidence for the conclusion that the relationship of consciousness to the brain is analogous to that

   The conclusion is the final sentence, and it does not say that "the relationship of consciousness to the brain is analogous to that of a radio program to the radio that receives it". It doesn't even mention radios. This analogous relationship is implied but never stated. According to this answer, however, the main conclusion explicitly identifies this analogous relationship.

   12%
5. E

   Trap2% picked this

   It is cited as an example of a case in which something consisting purely of energy depends on the existence of something material

   Weak Match Out of Scope: purely of energy Within this analogy, it does feel fair to say that the radio / body are material things that provide evidence of the radio program / consciousness, which we would probably agree (from outside knowledge) consists purely of energy. But this argument never said or implied that radio programs or consciousness exist purely of energy and depend on something material to provide evidence of its existence. We're just nodding our heads to that language based on our own sense of these concepts in real life. The correct answer doesn't involve us needing to insert our own thinking. We can just match the language of the answer choice to what was actually said in the paragraph. According to this answer choice, the damaged radio is cited as an example of case when pure energy needs a material vessel to make itself known. The author definitely does not announce this damaged radio analogy as an example pure energy needing a material vessel. Finally, this answer choice is describing a radio program, not a damaged radio. A damaged radio is not an example of something consisting purely of energy.

   2%